Seven Spades
Well-known member
Lots of people. A 36 foot Westerly weighs just under 10 tons and possibly more when fully loaded.Who needs a boat over 10 tonnes anyway?
Lots of people. A 36 foot Westerly weighs just under 10 tons and possibly more when fully loaded.Who needs a boat over 10 tonnes anyway?
Er, that was a (very) little joke. There are many good reasons for a boat over ten tonnes.Lots of people. A 36 foot Westerly weighs just under 10 tons and possibly more when fully loaded.
Based on my observations of Thursday night that limit was being ignored by a significant minority of the moored boats
I think I could guess. Did you see the Wandering Hillbilly's Aquila 54 that pulled a BVI ball out?Which, of course, does make one wonder about the moorings reliability even within the weight constraints if they are likely to have been over strained by previous visitors. I think the question has been asked before but I can't recall the answer. If one was using one of these moorings (within spec) and it failed, who is liable?
I've been in Studland when a SW'ly was blowing. Bay is very sheltered from the sea point of view but the wind can be there and therefore loading on the moorings.ISTM that if you provide a service to the public, you have a duty of care to those using the service. If I was on a commercial mooring I'd paid for and woke up on the rocks, I'd have no hesitation in making a claim.
OTOH, I wouldn't be too worried there. I doubt many big boats would want to be in Studland in a blow with much better shelter easily available, so even a 20-ton boat shouldn't be an issue
Eco moorings have one big weakness. The helical screw bottom attachment. If that is overloaded or eroded out, it fails suddenly, catastrophically, and without warning. It may have been checked the day before. An uprooted sinker at least slows the rate of drift.
Studland was (ISTM that if you provide a service to the public, you have a duty of care to those using the service. If I was on a commercial mooring I'd paid for and woke up on the rocks, I'd have no hesitation in making a claim.
OTOH, I wouldn't be too worried there. I doubt many big boats would want to be in Studland in a blow with much better shelter easily available, so even a 20-ton boat shouldn't be an issue
And it still is.Studland was (is)an anchorage of refuge to escape strong south westerlies.
The protected part of the anchorage is now full of mooring buoys of limited capacity so it's not as suitable as it once was.And it still is.
Surely a bigger boat can simply anchor outside the (voluntary) no anchoring zone. According to the chart there is a massive area at suitable depths.Sounds like there's a case for asking MMO to ensure provision for what by modern standards is a fairly normally size and weight of yacht, on safety grounds in this recognised refuge.
People like swimming from their boats in the summer. Further out is not really a great place for people to swim from their boat due to increased wash, waves and wind.Surely a bigger boat can simply anchor outside the (voluntary) no anchoring zone. According to the chart there is a massive area at suitable depths.
The quote I responded to stated - āon safety grounds in this recognised refugeā. Hardly a time to go swimming in that event.People like swimming from their boats in the summer. Further out is not really a great place for people to swim from their boat due to increased wash, waves and wind.
but it is not as shelteredSurely a bigger boat can simply anchor outside the (voluntary) no anchoring zone. According to the chart there is a massive area at suitable depths.
Letās not be over dramatic. Are you really going to tell me that a seaworthy 55 footer would be āput at riskā by anchoring 50-100m further out? Due to depth most couldnāt stay overnight close to the shore. And the shape of the VNAZ looks like the spot near the 2.6m sounding (UKHO Poole Bay Chart) is no further out than previously.but it is not as sheltered
People on big or small boats who sensibly rely on the security of their own anchor are now denied better shelter and the rest that comes with that.
There have been reports on this and other channels to that effect.
This puts mariners at more risk, not less.
It depends entirely on the situaton and we're talking about any vessel regardless of size who wishes to take ownership of their own safety. There are safer areas of the bay previously available now denied. I would be surprised for any mariner to vote for less safety.Letās not be over dramatic. Are you really going to tell me that a seaworthy 55 footer would be āput at riskā by anchoring 50-100m further out? Due to depth most couldnāt stay overnight close to the shore. And the shapIt